Published on October 2nd, 2011 | by Jasmin Ramsey3
What will “Doubling Down” on Iran Achieve?
In September Kenneth M. Pollack of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations published a paper in the Washington Quarterly endorsing a largely stick-based policy approach to Iran. Stephen M. Walt has analyzed it on his Foreign Policy blog and in doing so offers a proper assessment of what present policy has and will lead to if Pollack and Takeyh’s recommendations are adopted. Writes Walt:
- For starters, Pollack and Takeyh admit that their past prescriptions have been a bust. They take credit for what they call the Obama administration’s “two track” approach, writing that “the two of us were among the very first to propose this policy.” Then they freely admit “it is time to acknowledge that the current version of the two-track policy has failed.” The chutzpah here is impressive: although their own policy recommendations have failed, they think we should continue to respect their insights and follow their advice. It would be hard to find a clearer example of the lack of imagination or accountability that bedevils U.S. policy on this issue.
Second, Pollock and Takeyh present a one-sided narrative of U.S. policy toward Iran that exaggerates the carrots we’ve supposedly offered and overstates Iranian recalcitrance. They argue that the Obama administration started out with a “passionate determination to emphasize carrots,” and claim that “the United States and the international community have offered Iran a path toward a responsible civilian nuclear program … should it conform to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations.” This formulation is at best misleading and at worst simply wrong. Obama & Co. were hardly “passionate” about emphasizing carrots; in reality, the United States made a couple of purely symbolic gestures but quickly reverted to mostly sticks when the symbolism didn’t produce immediate Iranian concessions. Moreover, the United States and its allies have never made Iran a concrete offer; the supposed “path” to a deal was merely a list of topics Washington said it was willing to discuss as soon as Iran agreed to give us what we wanted (i.e., an end to nuclear enrichment).
Read more here.
© 2008-2017 LobeLog.com
Back to Top ↑